source: docs/PACT2011/06-scalability.tex @ 1048

Last change on this file since 1048 was 1048, checked in by ksherdy, 9 years ago

General edits.

File size: 2.5 KB
Line 
1\section{Scalability}
2\subsection{Performance}
3Figure \ref{Scalability} (a) shows the performance of Parabix2 on three different cores: \CO{}, \CI\ and \SB{}.
4The average processing time of the five workloads, which is evaluated as CPU cycles per thousand bytes,
5is divided up by bitstream parsing and byte space postprocessing.
6Bitstream parsing, which mainly consists of SIMD instructions,
7is able to achieve 17\% performance improvement moving from \CO\ to \CI{};
822\% performance improvement moving from \CI\ to \SB{},
9which is relatively stable compared to postprocessing,
10which gains 18\% to 31\% performance moving from \CO\ to \CI{};
110 to 17\% performance improvement moving from \CI\ to \SB{}.
12
13As comparison, we also measured the performance of Expat on all the three cores, which is shown is Figure \ref{Scalability} (b).
14The performance improvement is less than 5\% by running Expat on \CI\ instead of \CO\
15and it is less than 10\% by running on \SB\ instead of \CI{}.
16
17Parabix2 scales much better than Expat and is able to achieve an overall performance improvement
18up to 26\% simply by running the same code on a newer core.
19Further improvement on \SB\ with AVX will be discussed in the next section.
20
21\begin{figure}
22\centering
23\subfigure[Parabix2]{
24\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{plots/P2_scalability.pdf}
25}
26\subfigure[Expat]{
27\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{plots/Expat_scalability.pdf}
28}
29\caption{Processing Time of Parabix and Expat (y-axis: Total CPU Cycles per KByte)}
30\label{Scalability}
31\end{figure}
32
33
34\subsection{Power and Energy}
35
36The newer processors are not only designed to have better performance but also more energy-efficient.
37Figure \ref{power_Parabix2} shows the average power when running Parabix2 on \CO{}, \CI\ and \SB\ with different input files.
38On \CO{}, the average power is about 32 watts. \CI\ saves 30\% of the power compared with \CO{}.
39\SB\ saves 25\% of the power compared with \CI\ and consumes only 15 watts.
40
41The energy consumption is further improved by better performance, which means a shorter processing time, as we moved to the newer cores.
42As a result, Parabix2 on \SB\ cost 72\% to 75\% less energy than Parabix2 on \CO{}.
43
44\begin{figure}
45\begin{center}
46\includegraphics[width=85mm]{plots/power_Parabix2.pdf}
47\end{center}
48\caption{Average Power of Parabix2 (watts)}
49\label{power_Parabix2}
50\end{figure}
51
52\begin{figure}
53\begin{center}
54\includegraphics[width=85mm]{plots/energy_Parabix2.pdf}
55\end{center}
56\caption{Energy consumption of Parabix2 (nJ/B)}
57\label{energy_Parabix2}
58\end{figure}
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.